*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
MARIA MOULTHROP v. CONNECTICUT STATE

BOARD OF EDUCATION

(AC 43781)

Suarez, Clark and DiPentima, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff, a former elementary school principal, appealed to the trial

court from the decision by the defendant, pursuant to statute (§ 10-

145b (i) (2)), revoking her initial educator and professional educator

certificates after an investigation determined that she was involved in

and responsible for cheating that occurred on a schoolwide basis during

the administration of the Connecticut Mastery Test. The trial court found

that the record contained substantial evidence that the plaintiff directly

participated in a portion of the cheating, and knew that cheating was

taking place during the administration of the test and did not stop it.

The court rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, and the plaintiff

appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that there was no substantial

evidence to support the finding that she was directly involved in or was

responsible for the cheating. Held that, upon this court’s plenary review

of the record, the briefs and the arguments of the parties, the judgment

of the trial court was affirmed, and this court adopted the trial court’s

thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.

Argued May 19—officially released June 29, 2021

Procedural History

Appeal from the decision by the defendant revoking

the plaintiff’s initial educator and professional educator

certificates, and for other relief, brought to the Superior

Court in the judicial district of New Britain and tried

to the court, Cordani, J.; judgment for the defendant,

from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.

Affirmed.

John M. Gesmonde, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Kerry Anne Colson, assistant attorney general, with

whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Clare E. Kindall, solicitor general, for the

appellee (defendant).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Maria Moulthrop,

appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing

her administrative appeal from the decision of the

defendant, the Connecticut State Board of Education

(board), revoking her initial educator and professional

educator certificates.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims

that the court erred by concluding that she failed to

establish that the board’s decision (1) was predicated

on constitutional and statutory violations, and (2) was

clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and

substantial evidence in the whole record. We affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses the following relevant facts. The

plaintiff was employed by the Waterbury Board of Education as the principal of Hopeville Elementary School

(Hopeville) from 1996 until she resigned in December,

2011. The issues in the present appeal center on the

Connecticut Mastery Test2

(mastery test) that was

administered at Hopeville in the spring of 2011. The

performance of the Hopeville students on the mastery

test prior to 2011 could best be characterized as struggling, with fluctuating failing and nonfailing results. The

test scores for the Hopeville students in the spring of

2011, however, were higher than those of any other

public school in Waterbury, higher than the statewide

averages for all students, and substantially higher than

the scores for Hopeville students in prior years. The

unusual change in the test scores of Hopeville students

prompted an investigation by the state Department of

Education (department) that led to the determination

that cheating had occurred in the administration of the

mastery test at Hopeville in the spring of 2011. Data

analysis revealed that the 2011 test scores were the

result of adult interference with the test on a schoolwide

scale. Evidence that cheating occurred during the

administration of the spring, 2011 mastery test at Hopeville is overwhelming; the plaintiff does not challenge

that determination. The plaintiff, however, challenges

the board’s determination that she was involved in, and

was responsible for, the cheating that occurred.

On the basis of the department’s investigation and

pursuant to General Statutes § 10-145b (i) (2), the board

issued an administrative complaint seeking to revoke

the plaintiff’s initial educator certificate and professional educator certificate. A hearing officer conducted

an evidentiary hearing over nine days from 2016 through

2018 and issued a proposed decision in October, 2018.

The hearing officer found that the plaintiff was responsible for personally committing sundry breaches of security in connection with the administration of the 2011

mastery test at Hopeville or knowingly allowing others

in her school to do so. The hearing officer submitted

a report to the board recommending that the plaintiff’s

professional educator’s certificate be revoked and that
her initial educator’s certificate be placed on probation

with special conditions. On February 6, 2019, the board

adopted the decision of the hearing officer in all

respects, except that it revoked both of the plaintiff’s

educator certificates.

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, claiming

that there was no substantial evidence to support the

finding that she was directly involved in the cheating

on the spring, 2011 mastery test or that she was responsible for the schoolwide cheating on that test. She also

claimed that she was denied her constitutional and statutory rights during the investigation and hearing. The

court found that the record contains substantial evidence that the plaintiff directly participated in a portion

of the cheating and that she knew that cheating was

taking place during the administration of the mastery

test and did not stop it. The court also concluded that

the plaintiff failed to establish that the board’s decision

(1) violated any constitutional or statutory provision,

(2) was in excess of its statutory authority, (3) was

made upon unlawful procedure, (4) was affected by

other error of law, (5) was clearly erroneous in view

of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in

the whole record, or (6) was arbitrary or capricious,

or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly

unwarranted exercise of discretion. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j). The court dismissed the plaintiff’s

appeal.

Our plenary review of the record and the proceedings

in the trial court, as well as the briefs and arguments

of the parties on appeal, persuades us that the judgment

of the trial court should be affirmed. We, therefore,

adopt the trial court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the facts

and the applicable law on the issues. See Moulthrop v.

Connecticut State Board of Education, Superior Court,

judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-19-

6051413-S (December 18, 2019) (reprinted at 205 Conn.

App. , A.3d ). Any further discussion of the

issues by this court would serve no useful purpose. See,

e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2

A.3d 857 (2010); Pellecchia v. Killingly, 147 Conn. App.

299, 302, 80 A.3d 931 (2013).

The judgment is affirmed.

1 The plaintiff held an initial educator certificate that permitted her to

teach prekindergarten through twelfth grade. She also held a professional

educator certificate that permitted her to be an administrator in a school. See

General Statutes § 10-145b (governing issuance and revocation of teaching

certificates).

2 The Connecticut Mastery Test is a statutorily mandated, statewide, standardized test used for the purpose of measuring student achievement in

reading, language arts, and mathematics. See General Statutes § 10-14n.